W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2004

Re: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:50:50 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

At 01:40 AM 7/14/2004 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>. . .That's not the point. If indeed some "extra" info (like WS-Addr's
><wsa:Action> header) is required for the server to correctly process
>the message then of course the client must be informed that its
>gotta comply. I fully expect to put that hint into WSDL (which WS-Addr
>already does for WSDL 1.1)!

Careful.  Is it a hint (i.e., optional) or required?  The difference is 
critical: If it is expected by the provider agent, then it needs to be 
marked as wsdl:required="true" in the WSD -- not optional.

>. . . The issue is that the client must
>be told everything it needs to know in order to get what it wants
>done, done. Part of that info may be used for dispatch, part of it
>to charge the client's credit card and the other part to offer him
>some custom marketing stuff. . . . .

Right.  And there are two logical places for the information: either in the 
WSD or in the application semantics documentation.  Interop problems occur 
if the information is omitted from both.  Scenario X[1] was intended to 
illustrate that such omission is *likely* to occur if a toolkit 
automatically generates a WSD that doesn't specify an assumed convention as 
required, when in fact that convention *is* required for proper use of the 

1. Scenario X: 
or: http://tinyurl.com/4krve

David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 17:50:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:49 UTC